FINALLY, debates the way they are supposed to be done. Charlie Gibson made it clear the moderator would not be the focus. The candidates were sitting around the table, with interaction encouraged. Except for the useless presence of Rupaul, this debate was well done in terms of questions and answers.
The first question was excellent. The candidates were asked if they would run on or away from the Bush record. This question separates which candidates are too cowardly to stand with the President when the media is against him. The issues of arrogance and a bunker mentality, which Huckabee had said in the past, were brought up.
Huckabee’s answer was nonsense. He bashed Donald Rumsfeld.
Fred Thompson nailed it, by again reminding America about the global struggle against radical Islam.
Rudy Giuliani stated that President Bush got the big picture right. He stated that Bill Clinton slashed the military.
John McCain stated that he supported the Bush Doctrine. McCain has been critical of the President, but he gave the President credit for keeping us safer. He did state that he was the only one who disagreed with the Rumsfeld strategy several years ago, but that the President deserves credit for “one of the finest military leaders in American history” in David Petraeus. McCain praised Giuliani’s handling of 9/11, a classy gesture.
Ron Paul sounded very normal when stating that he disagreed with preemptive war. He stated that 3rd world nations are not capable of hurting us. Rupaul sounded normal until he went off the rails by stating that all religions have violent elements.
Mitt Romney immediately laced into Rupaul by stating that he did not understand the threat of radical Islam, and then effusively praised President Bush. He then stated that we have to get to the Madrassas so young Muslims can be educated away from radical Islam.
Thompson coolly explained that preemption was an issue thought of during the Cold War, and explained that preeemption has to be kept.
Giuliani went after Rupaul, and explained that Rupaul’s thinking was why Giuliani returned the check from the Saudi Prince. He said that our foreign policy is irrelevant to why they hate us. They just hate us.
Rupaul continued to try and argue the devil’s advocate position.
Romney said to Rupaul that we should read their writings but not espouse their propaganda.
Rupaul said we were occupying, and the other five candidates wanted to verbally pound him into the ground.
Huckabee claimed that he supported the President early on and Romney did not.
Romney disputed Huckabee’s assertion and his own position, and Huckabee cracked “which one?” It was a cheap shot. Romney reinforced his support for the surge.
Rupaul continued to rail, and Romney cracked, “They are not attacking Luxembourg.”
Rudy shined by bringing up London, Bali, Leon Klinghoffer. He is magnificent when he does this. He explained that on 9/11 itself, he did not blame all Muslims for a few evil people.
Thompson joked to Charlie Gibson, “You brought this up.”
The next question dealt with a video of President Bush on December 20th, 2007, saying that the next President must have principles, and not be led by polls. The candidates were asked what their principles are.
McCain went back to his Naval career at age 17 to protect and defend America, restore confidence and trust in government. He stated he has been involved in every major national security issue that has occurred since then. He never wavered on the surge, and that had we done what the democrats wanted, Al Queda would have been trumpeting their victory over the USA.
Romney spoke of his family, but offered little else. He stated the importance of the family. Keeping America strong through families, the economy, and our military was paramount.
Giuliani spoke of leadership. He spoke of his 12 principles that he wrote about on the internet and distributed. First was staying on offense in the War on Terror.
When the moderator mentioned how all the candidates had altered something somewhere, Giuliani responded that you have to stay true to the big things. Views can change, but your central philosophy must stay the same.
Huckabee got pious by saying that policies were not principles. He then babbled about the history of America. He then said policies are not positions.
Thompson stated that our first principles must be based on the U.S. Constitution. He stated the 10th Amendment, and related that to tax policy and personal responsibility.
Rupaul railed. Rudy then decked him in the face and said Osama was next. Just kidding. Rupaul stated America was being a bully.
The debate then turned to health care. The candidates were asked how we could afford a trillion dollar war without covering everybody.
Giuliani stated that privatization is key, and that more government intervention would make things worse. We should provide tax incentives and health savings accounts. Large consumer markets improve quality.
McCain stated the problem is inflation, not quality. He mentioned the young people developing diabetes and obesity, and that fitness programs should be emphasized.
Romney mentioned his plan that covered all people in Massachusetts without raising taxes. He claimed that 300,000 more people in his state were covered.
Rupaul blamed the war on the health care issues in America. Rupaul claimed Americans are going to India to get heart surgery.
Thompson ridiculed Rupaul. He was honest when he stated we would never get total coverage because some people refuse to buy coverage.
Romney stated he liked certain types of mandates, at which point Thompson said, “Yeah, the ones you come up with.” Romney then stated that people who refused to buy insurance had to pay their own expenses if they got sick.
Thompson and Romney tussled, and Thompson got the better of the exchange.
When pressed about Federal mandates, Romney was flustered.
Huckabee stated that our entire model was upside down. We focus on disease cures instead of prevention. 80% of the spending is on chronic diseases.
Giuliani stated that health savings accounts would be a way to implement what Huckabee was talking about. Huckabee gave a general statement, but Giuliani offered specifics.
McCain spoke of outcome based treatment, and that 5 major diseases are 75% of costs. He spoke of an Arizona plan giving incentives for providers to keep people in home care settings rather than long term care facilities. He then bashed greedy pharmaceutical companies that prevent drugs coming in from Canada.
Romney chided McCain for bashing the drug companies, stating that they create drugs that save lives. McCain bashed them again, but Romney won this exchange.
McCain was asked about his illegal immigration plans. He reaffirmed his support for the guest worker program, said border enforcement was important but that the illegal immigrants were “God’s children.”
Romney talked tough and stated that guest worker programs amounted to amnesty, but that he welcomed legal immigration.
Giuliani was asked if illegals currently here need to leave immediately. He spoke of border enforcement, but none of the candidates advocating deportations of those currently here. Giuliani stated that you cannot throw them all out, but we should throw out the ones that commit crimes. He slyly hinted that Romney might try to remove them all. He stated that taxing and fining those that are caught was not amnesty.
McCain stated that 2 years ago, Romney praised McCain’s plan. Romney acknowledged that he had some reservations, and McCain disputed that. The exchange was heated, but McCain told Romney “you could spend your entire fortune on attack ads, that would not make them true.” It was a great line, but McCain smiled too quickly. McCain then stated that Romney gets misquoted because he keeps changing his positions.
Giuliani stated that Reagan was for amnesty, and even as the hero of our party, Reagan would be in one of Romney’s negative ads. He stated that fines and conditions and then allowing people to stay is not amnesty.
Thompson stated if you’re allowed to stay, it’s amnesty. Giuliani stated penalties remove it as amnesty, but Thompson respectfully disagreed, that anyone staying has amnesty.
This was a brilliant point in the debate, because they could both be right. It is a very interesting point worth debating. If somebody faces penalties, but get to stay, have they “gotten away with it?” I honestly do not know. Giuliani and Thompson both contributed a major discussion point, the whole point of debates to begin with.
Giuliani stated that it was inhumane to deport children of illegal immigrants and kick them out of school, to refuse emergency medical services, and to give breaks to whistleblowers of crimes who happened to be illegal.
Huckabee added nothing. He said people can leave, but did not say how we make them leave without some “help.”
Rupaul spoke about the runaway welfare state, and spoke about the incentives for people to break the rules.
Romney praised legal immigration in a suckup moment.
Romney was asked why Barack Obama is not the right man for the job. Romney stated that Obama’s health care plan is a government run plan. Romney reaffirmed his credentials as a businessman, his Olympics experience, and as a Governor.
Thompson simply stated that Obama was a liberal down the line. He pointed out that Obama speaks in generalities, and that the real change we need is to go to Constitutional principles, which means not taxing and regulating to death. Obama would increase the welfare state and weaken us militarily.
McCain got in another dig by saying Romney was the candidate of change (because he keeps changing). McCain then said he has more experience than Obama on national security issues.
Romney expressed his agitation with McCain’s barbs.
Giuliani stated that Obama has no executive experience, and that not all change is good. Higher taxes and withdrawing from Iraq, are negative changes.
Huckabee stated Obama is wrong on the 2nd Amendment, 10th Amendment, life issues, national defense, same sex marriage, etc. Huckabee this time stuck to policies, and it was his best answer of the night because of that. Huckabee praised Obama for being likable, and that republicans had better be for things and not just against them.
Rupaul compared himself to Obama favorably, they are both antiwar from the beginning, and supported by young people. He eventually stated that Obama supports the welfare state, and would not abolish the income tax. Overall, he spoke like Obama’s campaign manager.
The candidates were asked if high oil prices were here to stay, and we should level with the American public.
Rupaul correctly pointed out that the value of the dollar is what is hurting us, but then blamed the War in Iraq for the high prices. Rupaul is dead right on economics and dead wrong on the war.
McCain stated we must reduce foreign oil dependence and reduce greenhouses. He mentioned other technologies.
Thompson stated that oil companies have profits, but they also face lawsuits, and taking profits was not the answer. He perfectly explained that the issue was supply and demand, but that demagoguing the oil companies was wrong. He mentioned the refinery problem.
Giuliani stated that talking is not doing. We need to give alternative energy the same attention that 30 years ago we gave to putting a man on the moon. He mentioned that France is 80% nuclear, and China is building 40 nuclear plants.
Huckabee stated we can be energy independent in 10 years. It was pie in the sky rhetoric.
Romney stated we cannot do it in 10 years. Corporations spent more money on defending tort lawsuits than on research and development. This is upside down.
Rupaul was a nut as always. The Fox News debate without him will be a welcome change.
Huckabee proved he is a one trick pony, and cannot communicate effectively outside his narrow realm of social issues.
Romney got beaten up badly, and McCain got in some very effective shots at him regarding his veracity.
McCain was clever, but he needs to deliver his jabs witha serious face. His wide grin after each zinger reminded me of George W. Bush getting criticized for “smirking” in 2000. McCain did look smug, which is not him. Also, his lines were rehearsed, which is usually what Romney gets criticized for.
Fred Thompson looked Presidential, and he spoke in a crisp, calm manner. He does not always elaborate, but then again some situations require brevity. His words are solid in terms of quality.
Rudy Giuliani bounced back in a big. When foreign policy is discussed, he is virtually unbeatable. He still remains the only candidate to relate the War on Terror all the way back to the 1970s. It mystifies me why the other candidates do not. He does not just mention leadership. He gives examples, such as being principled in returning the Saudi blood money.
Fred Thompson came in a close second, but Rudy Giuliani won this debate.
Charlie Gibson was spectacular as the moderator, and must be brought back.
eric
Okay, I just finished readin the transcript, as I did not watch the debate.
Huckabee’s answer to the first question was right on the mark, and not in any way “nonsense.”
MR. GIBSON: So let me start with a general question. If you are the nominee, will you run on the Bush foreign policy record or will you run away from it? And Governor Huckabee, let me start with you because it was you who wrote that the Bush foreign policy reflects an arrogant bunker mentality.
MR. HUCKABEE: And when I made those statements, I was speaking to the fact that there were times when we gave the world the impression that we were going to ignore what they thought or what they felt, and we were going to do whatever it is we wanted to do.
But the fact is we’re going to do what is best for the American people. And as president, I will always act in the best interests of our country, but I’ll always try to make sure that we’re the strongest nation on earth, the most powerful, the most prepared but also the one that uses that strength in a very, very understanding way of making sure that when we use the strength we use it with full understanding of the implications of it.
And let me just finish the thought, Charlie, if I may. There were times when the arrogance was reflected, for example, in the former Defense secretary, who despite getting advice from the Defense Department that we would need 400,000 troops to be able to successfully bring stability to Iraq insisted that we would only use 180,000 troops and we would go in with a light footprint. And there was one particular statement that he made that I found especially troubling. He said we don’t go to war with the Army that we want; we go to war with the Army that we have. I felt that the proper way for us to approach this is we don’t go to war with the Army we have; we go to war with the Army that we need, and we make sure that we have what we need before we go to war, including a clear definition of what we’re going to do, irresistible force when we do it. And once we do it we don’t let the politicians interfere or interrupt the battlefield decisions of the commanders with blood on their boots and medals on their chest.
How anyone can call this nonsense is beyond me.
As for the rest of the debate – typical GOP chest-thumping, privatize-everything, immigrant-bashing, ignore-reality, adolescent nonsense.
JMJ
Really great comedy the way you put RuPaul instead of Ron Paul, I am trying to hold in all my laughter. This may be funniest blog I have ever read.
Thanks please keep up the laughs and we will continue to not take you serious as a political blogger.
LMBO, that was crude and mean. You obviously haven’t read this blog as often as you should. The Tygrrrr is the best conservative blog out there. Do you know how I know that? Because I’m replying to your comment.
If you’re a Ron Paul guy, then c’mon – put up or shut up. ;)
JMJ
“RuPaul” was funny the first time. Thereafter, it distracted from your arguments. Overall, you make some good points, but need to consider proofreading your entries before posting them. There are too many word and/or phrase elisions that produce sentences that make no sense. It’s a good blog, but such things are distracting.
Oh my God !
I’m I have to pinch myself here cuz I’m about to agree with Jersey.
What does LMBO stand for ?
Every now and then we all run into a guy we just want slap in the head and then walk away from him. Ya now, not even say anything to him. Just walk up to him and blast him one.
There are those that disagree and then there are those that are just uninformed prejudgemental asswipes. Which is convenient when you talk out of your ass.
LMBO, this actually one of the best political blogs in the country. It would of placed first in politics but the guy running the vote was doing just that. And I’m pretty sure we damn near proved it too.
And seeing as how this blog is very popular it only gaurantees the fact that alot of people just read that brain fart statement of yours.
Everyone in the elevator knows it was you who farted.
My second agreement with Jersey is as I’ve always said ;
“we should gone in with more guys in the beggining BALLS OUT !”
But Rumsfeld still has an impressive past. I think it was just his time, maybe burn out, I dont know.
Jersey, If LMBO is a Ron Paul guy,about right now I’m sure hes contemplating who else he might give his vote to.
And also, if you didnt see the debate how can you accuratly say it was – typical GOP chest-thumping, privatize-everything, immigrant-bashing, ignore-reality, adolescent nonsense ?
You gotta stop with the reality thing. Just because you view something as a reality doesnt mean it is.
Reality is like women. You cant figure them out , and they dont always make sense,but you can still pick the one you like
Great site. Thanks for your comments on my site. I would love to hook up my site with yours. How do we do that?
I get pretty good traffic also.
The discussion of Pakistan on the Democratic side is inance. President Bush needs to get rid of his tin ear and work with the Pakistan which has been a US ally since 1947, a founding member of SEATO, CENTO, MNNA (Major non-nato ally). Pakistan and Afghansitan lost 2 million kids fighting on the side of the USA.
It was because of the defeat in Afghanistan that the USSR exploded.
moinansari.wordpress.com
Pakistan: The Democrats still don’t get it!”
Perpetual Mimetic warfare
About the inane discussion of taking out Pakistan’s Nuclear weapons.”
Taking out Pakistani Nuclear weapons.”
Hmm, he says he is a Republican blogger, yet he supports the Fox Republican debate not including the only true conservative Republican running. I read through many of his posts and I still think it’s a comedy blog first, then a failed attempt at a neocon republican blog second.
I would take you more serious if you wouldn’t call this a conservative blog, because I see very little that points to what is a true conservative is from reading this comedy routine, err, sorry political blog.
The American candidates are using the Pakistan issue to try to respond to a complex question. Most have stumbled. Hillary thought that Musharraf was running for elections in 2208. Huckaby falsely claimed that the majority of Illegal aliens crossing the US-Mexican border were Pakistanis. He later retracted this statement. Bill Richardson claimed that Pakistan needs to setup an interm government before the elections of Feb. 2008. An interim government is already in place. Huckaby also called for removing Martial Law in Pakistan. The state of Emergency had been removed two week before his comments. Hillary Clinton wants to have a joint US-UK team to deal with Paksitani Nuclear weapons. This would be a declaration of war. Ron Paul actually made some sane comments. The issues of blawback has long been accepted by the CIA. ….for details on the US Pakistani relationship kindly visit my site which will soon be hooked up to this fantastic site.
moinansar.wordpress.com
Getting through the American tin ear. Bringing stability to the Afghan provinces. Listen to the Pakistanis”
Pakistani infrastructure needs. Building Pakistan up as a bulwark against American enemies”
[…] Excellent breakdown. I saw the debate the same way. Rudy won in my opinion as well, but Fred had a good showing. […]
So wheres your blog LMBO ?
I don’t blog, instead I go around and point out the foolishness found in other blogs. With all these free sites offering blogs it appears anyone who wants a blog can write one. Just makes my job that much harder.
I’m curious to know why, with all the talk about Pakistan, nobody had anything to say about Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. I understand why she chose to return to Pakistan when she did.
What I will not understand is why, when the UK warned her of an assassination plot against her, she chose to have really lax security and stood up through the open sunroof of a car. She certainly wasn’t “asking for it,” but by doing what she did, she had to have known that she was taking a huge risk. I know little about her 19-year-old son, but trust Moinansari might be able to give me a perspective on him.
Yes, this is tangential to the debate. Regardless, Moinansari brought up the topic, and it piqued my curiosity. My take on Musharraf is that he was caught between a rock and a hard place back when we entered Iraq. Since then, he’s been pretty darn pragmatic. As to what’s next for Pakistan, I really would like some perspective from someone who knows better than I.
LMBO.
Maybe you should open your own blog before you critisize others ?
Do I actually have to tell you this ?
Then I’ll make it my job to come and talk stink about yours, fair enough ?
Any goody two shoes can run around and critisize. But in order to be a critc on anything it only makes sense to be experienced in it.
Critics who have no experience in the field they critisize are not taken seriously.
Now are they ?
To attack a blog and its author is penny ante. To controverte a position is a whole nuther ball game.
Wanna play ? Wanna see me do my job ?
Maybe we could start with your Munchkin Paul ?
I dont care what you call him, he’s a nut. Al his mitigating positions will never cancel out his backasswards foreign policies.
This derilict of common sense wants to just pack it up and leave the whole middle east to its own devices so it can fester like a boil and pop all over us one day. Not saying how we protect our oil or go after the bastards that want you and I dead.Thats national suicide
Ontop of that , he just does not look mentally stable. He always looks as if hes ready to lay on his belly and kick and scream.
I had a feeling about LMBO, Micky. I can spot a libertarian from a hundred paces. Like reality.
JMJ
What if you couldnt spot it. Would it then be unreal ?
When someone I disagree with tells me to face reality.
Its like telling me my senses dont work as well as his only because I dont see things his way. Its like asking someone to have blind faith in things like gerbil warming.
Opinions are never going to be realities.
Do you remember Mork fromOrk ?
“Reality ! What a concept !”
Look at it this way, Micky – the Paul crowd is so far removed from reality, anyone could spot it from a hundred paces. Nothing special about me.
JMJ
I don’t have to blog and don’t need one, like I said I read other blogs and comment on those so in a sense, I get my opinions out there. Unlike this author I don’t have to stoop to low levels and name calling of candidates, instead I argue the positions and point out the foolishness of people like all of you.
I am afraid the current GOP doesn’t see reality, I can’t wait to see you guys go down this year, people are tired of your war propaganda and fear tactics. Oh no the Middle East is going to attack us if we don’t attack them first, I’m so scared. Your big spending and lack of care for personal liberties is completely sad. Maybe once the neocons are finally run out of office next year the GOP will return to it’s roots. My party affiliation isn’t GOP, Democrat, Libertarian, or Green. I don’t agree with any of these parties fully right now so I don’t associate with them.
Most here attack Paul, but have yet to understand his positions. Government spending is out of control, we are spending billions upon billions every year over seas. I don’t agree with Guliani, Thompson, or Huckabee, but I don’t dump myself to the level of this blog with stupid name calling. Attack the positions and argue the positions instead of petty name calling. You all act like 5 year olds on the playground. I was simply pointing out that he claims to be a serious political blogger, yet he writes and acts like a 5 year old. Sorry the facts hurt!
LMBO wrote;
“Most here attack Paul, but have yet to understand his positions”
Like I said; “Al his mitigating positions will never cancel out his backasswards foreign policies.”
==================================================================
LMBO wrote;
“I don’t have to blog and don’t need one, like I said I read other blogs and comment on those so in a sense, I get my opinions out there. Unlike this author I don’t have to stoop to low levels and name calling of candidates,’
Still, I repeat myself only because you did critisize this blog, as follows;
“then a failed attempt at a neocon republican blog second.”
And when you can put something better together, you will be taken seriously.
==================================================================
“stoop to low levels and name calling of candidates, instead I argue the positions and point out the foolishness of people like all of you.”
And then you call us foolish, so much for name calling huh ?
==================================================================
“I am afraid the current GOP doesn’t see reality”
I refer you to post #15.
==================================================================
LMBO wrote;
“Oh no the Middle East is going to attack us if we don’t attack them first, I’m so scared. Your big spending and lack of care for personal liberties is completely sad. Maybe once the neocons are finally run out of office next year the GOP will return to it’s roots. My party affiliation isn’t GOP, Democrat, Libertarian, or Green. I don’t agree with any of these parties fully right now so I don’t associate with them.”
First of all its not the middle east were worried about attacking us. Its radical Islam.
And in case your head was somewhere, they did already attack us.
What personal liberties have you lost ? Tell me !
If you have no affiliation then whats your point ?
Good God man get over yourself , you are a backwards condecending freak when you state your opinion as fact. As follows;
“Attack the positions and argue the positions instead of petty name calling. You all act like 5 year olds on the playground. I was simply pointing out that he claims to be a serious political blogger, yet he writes and acts like a 5 year old. Sorry the facts hurt!”
As far as five year olds on the playground goes, if you got near the sandbox my cat would try to bury you.
(HEY JERSEY ! he said hes not a libertarian ! So much for your keen sense of reality huh ?)
LMBO, Paul is a Libertarian who happens to be Pro-Life. Yeah for him.
JMJ
Let’s argue the foreign policy and positions and end the attacks on each other, can we?
You say:
Like I said; “Al his mitigating positions will never cancel out his backasswards foreign policies.”
I would be interested in what positions you agree with and what positions you disagree with. I don’t think we can pack up and leave foreign soil in one day, one week, or even a year, but I do think we can start scaling back. Do we need troops in Korea? Do we need troops in Europe? Bin Laden said himself, they attacked us b/c we were in Saudi Arabia and b/c we were bombing Iraq. It got us attacked in the first place so what could hurt if we try a non-interventionalist policy? His foreign policy is one of the reasons I jumped on board in the first place.
The Patriot Act is a blatant attack on our personal liberties under the guise of fear propaganda. Now we have guys talking about national id cards. I just don’t agree with any of that.
“If you have no affiliation then whats your point ?”
I think this is another problem with our country. We are strictly a two party system that hinders anyone from another party. I most agree with the Constitutionalist party, but I like the GOP party of Goldwater and Regan (before he increased the size of Government) and first term Nixon. I supported Bush because of the principles he ran on. Unfortunately that changed and I don’t think 9-11 is the full reason for all of this.
Finally I still disagree with the author of this blog. What started out as a decent review of the GOP debate turned into a name calling session against Ron Paul.
LMBO,
You have crossed the line from arguing issues to attacking me personally.
I relentlessly promote myself, but all the promotion in the world will fail if the writing does not back it up. Mine backs it up, as my award reflects.
You have also united Micky and Jersey, who outside of another 9/11 would not unite on much. So if both of them think negatively of you, I would say they are right.
Lastly, you are a coward. You do not even use a legitimate email address.
Jersey McJones disagrees with me almost every day, but he is sincere. He is not afraid of being challenged. He adds to the debate.
Anyway, given that you contribute nothing positive to the debate, further comments from you will be deleted until you return with a real email address.
My blog is not a democracy, and this is a place for issues, not personal attacks.
Consider yourself dismissed Mr. Troll.
eric
Also I will continue to refer to Ron Paul as Rupaul, and when the unwashed teenagers take down their “bong hits for Ron Paul” signs, I will treat them as rational thinking individuals.
My blog, my rules.
eric
LMBO wrote;
“don’t think we can pack up and leave foreign soil in one day, one week, or even a year, but I do think we can start scaling back.
Its already happeneng and its not a new idea. Just yesterday Patreaus announced the numbers involved in our gradual withdrawl.
=================================================================
LMBO wrote;
“Bin Laden said himself, they attacked us b/c we were in Saudi Arabia and b/c we were bombing Iraq. It got us attacked in the first place so what could hurt if we try a non-interventionalist policy?.
Wrong. radical Islam has been attacking us for decades before the first gulf war.
And we are allowed in Saudi arabia. Its not his call.
We have troops in Europe and Korea. But they have not attacked us once. never mind repeatedly.
==================================================================
LMBO wrote;
“The Patriot Act is a blatant attack on our personal liberties under the guise of fear propaganda.
No propoganda, unless you call 911 a total fabrication.
Pertaining to your allegations on the patriot act., I will ask you again. What liberties have you lost since 911 which is why the patriot act was put forth.
Your last paragraph is all opinion explaining yourself. :-(
Ron Paul is a idiot.
He wants out yesterday, even you dont think its a good idea.
LMBO; “I would be interested in what positions you agree with and what positions you disagree with.”
If I had it my way we would stop this hearts and mind facad and we would of gone in and gotten out a lot quicker. but hey , we are where we are at. And its being dealt with as well as possible. You dont hear much about Iraq anymore now, do you ?
Non interventionist approach is what got us here in the first place, ask Clinton.
But hes a proven liar, good luck.
National I.D. cards ? Big deal. Shut down the border and get everyone registerd.
We have to know whos here, dont we ?
Funny how you keep referring to Ron Paul as that confused he/she when Rudy was the only one on that stage who has ever worn a dress. In fact, I’ve seen him in a dress more often than Hillary. But that’s not saying much, of course.
;)
If Hillary was to wear a dress maybe someone would get a glimpse of what she really is.
Yeah, the tail might peek out.
I’m sicker than you Chris, thats not what I meant.
Re: #28. That’s just evil. I respect that… :)
I, too, am curious what rights the Patriot act have curtailed for me as an American citizen. Having the 1970’s wiretapping rules updated for technology? Eek. Now we have rules for things the FBI was doing anyway. As for non-citizen enemies? Who cares?
BTW, I don’t post much but I read often. Keep up the good work Eric.
Well done. My own blog post concentrated on the damn fool’s ignorance of Islam. I reamed them a new orfice. The title is Four Blind Fools. I am now returning to RCP to vote for your post.
Eric,
This is an article by an Imus Fan, Obama leading in New Hampshire.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/248447
It was probably the best of all the debates thus far this electoral season.